Tax policy as stealth legislation by SergeantX

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tax policy as stealth legislation

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 20:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2383
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:31 AM

Cit, I did provide a cite, which if you bothered to read, completely and effectively deconstructs most of the so-called "research" those claims are based upon.

My issue with it is that while yes, smoking is harmful, the sheer amount and degree of falsehoods and lies thrown up by folk who felt the need to "improve" their case against it has resulted in both their own credibility being toast and a lot of false information being accepted as "fact" by virtue of repetition and no one having the guts to challenge it.

Think of it like, say - a burglary case, and the suspect stole someones stereo, but then the cops plant a gun and several other stolen items at the guys apartment, pay some informants to accuse the perp of other burglaries, and generally "build up" their case in such a way that in the end they're pressing an absolute falsehood - and when caught out at it, the whole case comes crumbling down.

Ain't no one sayin it ain't harmful, I am stating that the folks making those claims have serious credibility issues and the studies they're basing on are all but laughable - so when they talk of "costs" they're artificially bumping their case in the manner above, to a degree that winds up casting doubt on their entire claim.

Besides which, these are in essence the same folk who, while railing about my smoking, are consuming their trans-fat loaded, MSG laced "health" food and washing it down with a "Diet" soda loaded with neurotoxic Aspartame and HFC - yeah, I really give THEIR advice a lotta credence.

And backed up by a medical establishment which told folk Gardasil was safe...

Mind you, many of those girls who suffered neuro damage and other serious complications from it have since died, and the updated VAERS database on it is a regular category of nightmares - anything that causes girls to drop like a rock less than an hour later with clear neuro trauma symptoms is scary enough - and vaccine induced GBS is a living nightmare, seriously, follow up the ever mounting pile of bodies in the aftermath of that fiasco, and then remember folk shouting me down about it... just cause I ain't a scientist myself don't mean I don't know WHO to ask about such matters, and it don't mean I am stupid neither.

So, yeah, I am not inclined to take the unsupported opinion of folk who've proven to be untrustworthy and have blatant financial and other conflicts of interests, basing those opinions on research so laughable it borders on comedy.

-Frem

DISCLAIMER: We've been officially contracted to "retaliate" against Merck for these deaths and injuries - however as we feel this will not bring them back, most of that effort is going into trying to figure out what causes the link between certain vaccines and neuro damage so that it can be prevented in the future, and open the possibility of effective treatment for those impacted.

So while kicking Merck in the chops is secondary to that goal, that don't mean the kickin ain't gonna occur, mind you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When Pal women start dressing up their babies in suicide pampers, might be a good idea to go ahead and take care of both of them at once, before they have a chance to kill.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37443#687361

I'd also like to note, that the reason AURaptor is calling me 'comrade' is because in another thread I said the Soviet Union had endemic internal problems that would have caused it's collapse despite Ronnie Ray-gun. Some how Rap's tiny little mind jumped from me saying a communist state was so flawed it would collapse on its own, to me being a communist. Maybe you should try creating insults that make sense.

I was sure he was just doing it because you weren't willing to prostrate yourself to Maggie Thatcher, and called bullshit on his over-the-top adulation and adoration for her. In Rap's eyes, "if'n you ain't wiff us, you's agin us!"

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:22 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Cit, I did provide a cite, which if you bothered to read, completely and effectively deconstructs most of the so-called "research" those claims are based upon.

Your willingness to dismiss medical research, while claiming that a lawyers say so is damning, and assumption that because I don't buy it I can't have read it, is either laughable or alarming, I'm not sure which. He deconstructs bugger all, the best he does is claim that the evidence is nothing more than a correlation. This simply isn't true, numerous mechanisms for smoking causing various diseases have been demonstrated, point is it isn't merely a correlative assumption, unlike I might add his own use of statistics.

He claims that there is no evidence of reduction in cancers with declining numbers of smokers, yet this references a study that found reducing smoking also reduced the likelihood of developing cancer.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=13401

More directly to the claims that declining numbers of smokers doesn't correspond to declining levels of lung cancer:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1123631

Perhaps this is what he meant by selection bias? He selects only evidence that agrees with his position?

His deconstruction is littered with plain bad logic. He claims nicotine isn't addictive, and his basis for this assessment? That Nicotine Patches don't replace cigarettes? Hardly a winning argument, given that patches are designed not to replace smoking, but reduce the chemically addictive aspect of smoking gradually, making cravings easier to deal with (not eradicate them). It's hardly surprising that patches don't replace cigarettes when their not supposed to. The patches as designed don't give anything like the hit of nicotine that smoking does, his objection simply makes no sense if you look at it in detail, which is maybe why he doesn't. The chemically addicting nature of Nicotine is pretty much scientific fact, dismissing it's physiological effects based on a Nicotine Patches working as designed might be a wonderful argument when preaching to the choir, or the jury, but falls flat against the proven effects it has on the brain. It's an argument so asinine I'm finding it difficult to give it the credence necessary to even argue against it. The main reason I mention it is just because it's one of the most egregious and obvious faults of logic he indulges in. If this is supposed to dismiss the faulty logic of the medical establishment, perhaps you should have chosen a source with better logic, not far worse.

Sorry to break it too you Frem, but your great and magnificent source blowing the lid on this great lie is a lawyer, which is I believe a synonym for "full of shit". A correlative perhaps, but one Lauren A. Colby certainly seems to live up too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:34 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was sure he was just doing it because you weren't willing to prostrate yourself to Maggie Thatcher, and called bullshit on his over-the-top adulation and adoration for her. In Rap's eyes, "if'n you ain't wiff us, you's agin us!"

Oh probably. Authoritarian followers tend to take it as a personal insult if you don't love their leaders as much as they do. I just wanted to highlight the idiocy of his statements. I suppose the fact that he said it does that for me though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 8:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Cit, it's not like I am takin that guys word at face value either - especially over something like whether nicotene is addictive or not, but he does effectively challenge some of the piss-poor "science" behind a lot of those studies this is based on.

And while I've still never been shown *conclusive* proof that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, I will acknowledge the possibility, sure.

Consider this, though, during that same period of time we also eliminated many OTHER things that are known cause factors, like asbestos and such.

The problem with the whole "how harmful is it" is buried in the same exact problem of "does widespread weapon ownership contribute to crime and violence" or for that matter "global warming" - two sides of the issue both more than willing to lie their ass off, use bad science, cherry pick and distort information to the point where there's almost no viable chance of sorting out what the facts really ARE.

Of course, in the other two issues, thankfully BOTH sides are often called to account for that behavior, but in this issue, only ONE side has to ?

That's patently ridiculous - and while I acknowledge the practice is harmful, I am not about to take the word of folks known and proven to distort the facts if not outright lie, concerning what the actual expenses are, anymore than I would take a damn tobacco companys word for it.

When BOTH sides are lying through their teeth to me, I am not inclined to believe either one without solid evidence in hand - and yet people DO this, and they do it for political reasons that ain't got shit to do with folks health and safety.

And THAT, is my issue with it, that politically correct data from untrustworthy sources known to distort or falsify it is accepted as fact because it is politically expedient to do so.

Really, would YOU take the unsupported word of a known liar just cause you WANTED to believe what they were saying ?

I wouldn't.

-Frem

EDIT: PS, and yes, if you find his logic to be detrimental to his own case, which was in part my intent, now you know EXACTLY what my issue with the OTHER side of the argument is!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE